argumentative essay on keeping dogs as pets is dangerous

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Should we stop keeping pets? Why more and more ethicists say yes

Ninety per cent of Britons think of their pet as part of the family – 16% even included them on the last census. But recent research into animals’ emotional lives has cast doubt on the ethics of petkeeping

I t was a Tupperware tub of live baby rats that made Dr Jessica Pierce start to question the idea of pet ownership. She was at her local branch of PetSmart, a pet store chain in the US, buying crickets for her daughter’s gecko. The baby rats, squeaking in their plastic container, were brought in by a man she believed was offering to sell them to the store as pets or as food for the resident snakes. She didn’t ask. But Pierce, a bioethicist , was troubled.

“Rats have a sense of empathy and there has been a lot of research on what happens when you take babies away from a mother rat – not surprisingly, they experience profound distress,” she says. “It was a slap in the face – how can we do this to animals?”

Pierce went on to write Run, Spot, Run , which outlines the case against pet ownership, in 2015. From the animals that become dog and cat food and the puppy farms churning out increasingly unhealthy purebred canines, to the goldfish sold by the bag and the crickets by the box, pet ownership is problematic because it denies animals the right of self-determination. Ultimately, we bring them into our lives because we want them, then we dictate what they eat, where they live, how they behave, how they look, even whether they get to keep their sex organs.

Treating animals as commodities isn’t new or shocking; humans have been meat-eaters and animal-skin-wearers for millennia. However, this is at odds with how we say we feel about our pets. The British pet industry is worth about £10.6bn ; Americans spent more than $66bn (£50bn) on their pets in 2016 . A survey earlier this year found that many British pet owners love their pet more than they love their partner (12%), their children (9%) or their best friend (24%). According to another study, 90% of pet-owning Britons think of their pet as a member of their family , with 16% listing their animals in the 2011 census.

“It is morally problematic, because more people are thinking of pets as people … They consider them part of their family, they think of them as their best friend, they wouldn’t sell them for a million dollars,” says Dr Hal Herzog , a professor of psychology at Western Carolina University and one of the founders of the budding field of anthrozoology , which examines human-animal relations. At the same time, research is revealing that the emotional lives of animals, even relatively “simple” animals such as goldfish, are far more complex and rich than we once thought (“dogs are people, too”, according to a 2013 New York Times comment piece by the neuroscientist Gregory Berns ). “The logical consequence is that the more we attribute them with these characteristics, the less right we have to control every single aspect of their lives,” says Herzog.

Does this mean that, in 50 years or 100 years, we won’t have pets? Institutions that exploit animals, such as the circus, are shutting down – animal rights activists claimed a significant victory this year with the closure of Ringling Bros circus – and there are calls to end, or at least rethink, zoos. Meanwhile, the number of Britons who profess to be vegan is on the rise, skyrocketing 350% between 2006 and 2016.

Widespread petkeeping is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the 19th century, most animals owned by households were working animals that lived alongside humans and were regarded unsentimentally. In 1698, for example, a Dorset farmer recorded in his diary: “My old dog Quon was killed and baked for his grease, which yielded 11lb.” However, in the 19th and 20th centuries, animals began to feature less in our increasingly urban environments and, as disposable income grew, pets became more desirable. Even as people began to dote on their pets, though, animal life was not attributed any intrinsic value. In Run, Spot, Run, Pierce reports that, in 1877, the city of New York rounded up 762 stray dogs and drowned them in the East River, shoving them into iron crates and lifting the crates by crane into the water. Veterinarian turned philosopher Bernard Rollin recalls pet owners in the 1960s putting their dog to sleep before going on holiday , reasoning that it was cheaper to get a new dog when they returned than to board the one they had.

More recently, however, several countries have moved to change the legal status of animals. In 2015, the government of New Zealand recognised animals as sentient beings, in effect declaring them no longer property (how this squares with New Zealand’s recent “war on possums” is unclear), as did the Canadian province of Quebec. While pets remain property in the UK, the Animal Welfare Act of 2006 stipulates that pet owners must provide a basic level of care for their animals. Pets are also property in the US, but 32 states, as well as Puerto Rico and Washington DC, now include provisions for pets under domestic violence protection orders. In 2001, Rhode Island changed its legislation to describe pet owners as “guardians” , a move that some animal rights’ advocates lauded (and others criticised for being nothing more than a change in name).

Before we congratulate ourselves on how far we have come, consider that 1.5m shelter animals – including 670,000 dogs and 860,000 cats – are euthanised each year in the US . The number of stray dogs euthanised annually in the UK is far lower – 3,463 – but the RSCPA says investigations into animal cruelty cases increased 5% year on year in 2016 , to 400 calls a day.

“Can I stick my dog in a car and take him to the vet and say: ‘I don’t want him any more, kill him,’ or take him to a city shelter and say: ‘I can’t keep him any more, I hope you can find a home for him, good luck’?” says Gary Francione , a professor at Rutgers Law School in New Jersey and an animal rights advocate. “If you can still do that, if you still have the right to do that, then they are still property.”

Crucially, our animals can’t tell us whether they are happy being pets. “There is an illusion now that pets have more voice than in the past … but it is maybe more that we are putting words into their mouth,” Pierce says, pointing to the abundance of pets on social media plastered with witty projections written by their “parents”. “Maybe we are humanising them in a way that actually makes them invisible.”

If you accept the argument that pet ownership is morally questionable, how do you put the brakes on such a vast industry? While he was writing his 2010 book, Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat , Herzog was studying the motivations of animal rights activists and whether it was emotion or intellect that pushed them towards activism. One of the subjects, Herzog says, was “very, very logical”. After he had become a vegan, eschewed leather shoes and convinced his girlfriend to go vegan, he considered his pet cockatiel. “I remember; he looked up wistfully. He said he got the bird, took it outside, let it loose and it flew up,” Herzog recalls. “He said: ‘I knew she wouldn’t survive, that she probably starved. I guess I was doing it more for myself than for her.’”

Although Pierce and Francione agree that pet ownership is wrong, both of them have pets: Pierce has two dogs and a cat; Francione has six rescue dogs, whom he considers “refugees”. For now, the argument over whether we should own animals is largely theoretical: we do have pets and giving them up might cause more harm than good. Moreover, as Francione suggests, caring for pets seems to many people to be the one area where we can actually do right by animals; convincing people of the opposite is a hard sell.

Tim Wass, the chair of the Pet Charity , an animal welfare consultant and a former chief officer at the RSPCA, agrees. “It has already been decided by market forces and human nature … the reality is people have pets in the millions. The question is: how can we help them care for them correctly and appropriately?”

If the short history of pet ownership tells us anything, it is that our attitude towards animals is prone to change. “You see these rises and falls in our relationships with pets,” says Herzog. “In the long haul, I think petkeeping might fall out of fashion; I think it is possible that robots will take their place, or maybe pet owning will be for small numbers of people. Cultural trends come and go. The more we think of pets as people, the less ethical it is to keep them.”

• Animal welfare
• Animal behaviour

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

Photo by Brian Rueb Photography/Getty

The case against pets

A morally just world would have no pets, no aquaria, no zoos. no fields of sheep, no barns of cows. that’s true animal rights.

by Gary L Francione & Anna E Charlton   + BIO

We live with six rescued dogs. With the exception of one, who was born in a rescue for pregnant dogs, they all came from very sad situations, including circumstances of severe abuse. These dogs are non-human refugees with whom we share our home. Although we love them very much, we strongly believe that they should not have existed in the first place.

We oppose domestication and pet ownership because these violate the fundamental rights of animals.

The term ‘animal rights’ has become largely meaningless. Anyone who thinks that we should give battery hens a small increase in cage space, or that veal calves should be housed in social units rather than in isolation before they are dragged off and slaughtered, is articulating what is generally regarded as an ‘animal rights’ position. This is attributable in large part to Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation (1975), who is widely considered the ‘father of the animal rights movement’.

The problem with this attribution of paternity is that Singer is a utilitarian who rejects moral rights altogether, and supports any measure that he thinks will reduce suffering. In other words, the ‘father of the animal rights movement’ rejects animal rights altogether and has given his blessing to cage-free eggs, crate-free pork, and just about every ‘happy exploitation’ measure promoted by almost every large animal welfare charity. Singer does not promote animal rights ; he promotes animal welfare . He does not reject the use of animals by humans per se . He focuses only on their suffering. In an interview with The Vegan magazine in 2006, he said, for example, that he could ‘imagine a world in which people mostly eat plant foods, but occasionally treat themselves to the luxury of free-range eggs, or possibly even meat from animals who live good lives under conditions natural for their species, and are then humanely killed on the farm’.

We use the term ‘animal rights’ in a different way, similar to the way that ‘human rights’ is used when the fundamental interests of our own species are concerned. For example, if we say that a human has a right to her life, we mean that her fundamental interest in continuing to live will be protected even if using her as a non-consenting organ donor would result in saving the lives of 10 other humans. A right is a way of protecting an interest; it protects interests irrespective of consequences. The protection is not absolute; it may be forfeited under certain circumstances. But the protection cannot be abrogated for consequential reasons alone.

Non-human animals have a moral right not to be used exclusively as human resources, irrespective of whether the treatment is ‘humane’, and even if humans would enjoy desirable consequences if they treated non-humans exclusively as replaceable resources.

W hen we talk about animal rights, we are talking primarily about one right: the right not to be property. The reason for this is that if animals matter morally – if animals are not just things – they cannot be property. If they are property, they can only be things. Think about this matter in the human context. We are all generally agreed that all humans, irrespective of their particular characteristics, have the fundamental, pre-legal right not to be treated as chattel property. We all reject human chattel slavery. That is not to say that it doesn’t still exist. It does. But no one defends it.

The reason we reject chattel slavery is because a human who is a chattel slave is no longer treated as a person, by which we mean that the slave is no longer a being who matters morally. A human slave is a thing that exists completely outside the moral community. All the interests that the human slave has can be valued by someone else – the owner – who might choose to value the slave as a member of the family, or could provide the slave with minimal sustenance but otherwise treat the slave horribly. The slave’s fundamental interests might be valued at zero.

There were many laws that purported to regulate race-based human slavery in the United States and Britain. These laws did not work because the only times regulatory laws are relevant is when there is a conflict between slave and slave owner. And, if the slave owner does not prevail substantially all of the time, then there is no longer an institution of slavery. There can be no meaningful challenge to the exercise of the owner’s property rights.

The same problem exists where non-humans are concerned. If animals are property, they can have no inherent or intrinsic value. They have only extrinsic or external value. They are things that we value. They have no rights; we have rights, as property owners, to value them . And we might choose to value them at zero.

There are many laws that supposedly regulate our use of non-human animals. In fact, there are more such laws than there were laws that regulated human slavery. And, like the laws that regulated human slavery, they don’t work. These laws are relevant only when human interests and animal interests conflict. But humans have rights, including the right to own and use property. Animals are property. When the law attempts to balance human and non-human interests, the result is preordained.

however ‘humanely’ we treat animals, they are still subjected to treatment that, were humans involved, would be torture

Moreover, because animals are chattel property, the standard of animal welfare will always be very low. It costs money to protect animal interests, which means that those interests will, for the most part, be protected only in those situations in which there is an economic benefit in doing so. It is difficult to find a welfare measure that does not make animal exploitation more efficient. Laws requiring the stunning of large animals before slaughter reduce carcass damage and worker injuries. Housing calves in smaller social units rather than in solitary crates reduces stress and resulting illness, which reduces veterinary costs.

To the extent that animal welfare measures increase production costs, the increase is usually very small (eg, going from the conventional battery cage to ‘enriched cages’ in the EU) and rarely affects overall demand for the product given elasticities of demand. In any event, however ‘humanely’ treated animals used for food are, they are still subjected to treatment that, were humans involved, would be torture. There is no such thing as ‘happy’ exploitation.

Although the right not to be property is a negative right and does not address any positive rights that non-humans might have, recognition of that one negative right would have the effect of requiring us, as a matter of moral obligation, to reject all institutionalised exploitation, which necessarily assumes that animals are just things that we can use and kill for our purposes.

W e want to take a short detour here and point out that, although what we are saying might sound radical, it’s really not. Indeed, our conventional wisdom about animals is such that we come to almost the same conclusion without any consideration of rights at all.

Conventional wisdom about animals is that it is morally acceptable for humans to use and kill them but that we should not impose unnecessary suffering and death on animals. However we might understand the concept of necessity in this context, it cannot be understood as allowing any suffering or death for frivolous purposes. We recognise this clearly in particular contexts. For example, many people still have a strong negative reaction to the American football player Michael Vick, who was found to be involved in a dog-fighting operation in 2007. Why do we still resent Vick almost a decade later? The answer is clear: we recognise that what Vick did was wrong because his only justification was that he derived pleasure or amusement from harming those dogs, and pleasure and amusement cannot suffice as justifications.

Many – perhaps most – people object to bullfighting, and even most Tories in the UK oppose fox hunting. Why? Because those bloodsports, by definition, involve no necessity or compulsion that would justify imposing suffering and death on non-human animals. No one proposed that Vick would be less culpable if he were a more ‘humane’ dog fighter. No one who opposes bloodsports proposes that they be made more humane because they involve unnecessary suffering. They oppose the activities altogether, and advocate their abolition, because these activities are immoral, however they are conducted.

The problem is that 99.999 per cent of our uses of non-human animals are morally indistinguishable from the activities to which the overwhelming number of us object.

The only use of animals that we make that is not transparently frivolous is the use of animals in research to find cures for serious illnesses

Our most numerically significant use of animals is for food. We kill more than 60 billion animals for food annually, and this does not count the even larger number – estimated conservatively to be about a trillion – of sea animals. We don’t need to eat animals for optimal health. Indeed, an increasing number of mainstream healthcare authorities, including the National Institutes of Health in the US, the American Heart Association, the British National Health Service, and the British Dietetic Association, have stated that a sensible vegan diet can be just as nutritious as a diet that includes animal foods. Some authorities have gone further to say that a vegan diet can be healthier than an omnivorous diet. In any event, it cannot be credibly claimed that we need animal products for health reasons. And animal agriculture is an ecological disaster.

We consume animal products because we enjoy the taste. In other words, we are no different from Vick, except that most of us pay others to inflict the harm rather than inflicting it ourselves. And our uses of animals for entertainment or sport are, by definition, also unnecessary. The only use of animals that we make that is not transparently frivolous is the use of animals in research to find cures for serious illnesses. We reject vivisection as morally unjustifiable even if it involves necessity (a claim we also believe is problematic as an empirical matter), but the morality of vivisection requires a more nuanced analysis than the use of animals for food, clothing, entertainment and other purposes. Just about all of our other uses of animals can easily be seen to be immoral given our conventional wisdom.

The bottom line: whether you adopt an animal-rights position and recognise that animals must have a basic, pre-legal right not to be property, or you stay with conventional wisdom, the result is the same: substantially all of our uses of animals must be abolished.

T o say that an animal has a right not to be used as property is simply to say that we have a moral obligation to not use animals as things, even if it would benefit us to do so. With respect to domesticated animals, that means that we stop bringing them into existence altogether. We have a moral obligation to care for those right-holders we have here presently. But we have an obligation not to bring any more into existence.

And this includes dogs, cats and other non-humans who serve as our ‘companions’.

We treat our six dogs as valued members of our family. The law will protect that decision because we may choose to value our property as we like. We could, however, choose instead to use them as guard dogs and have them live outside with virtually no affectionate contact from us. We could put them in a car right now and take them to a shelter where they will be killed if they are not adopted, or we could have them killed by a veterinarian. The law will protect those decisions as well. We are property owners. They are property. We own them.

The reality is that in the US, most dogs and cats do not end up dying of old age in loving homes. They have homes for a relatively short period of time before they are transferred to another owner, taken to a shelter, dumped or killed.

And it does not matter whether we characterise an owner as a ‘guardian’, as some advocates urge. Such a characterisation is meaningless. If you have the legal right to take your dog to a kill shelter, or to ‘humanely’ kill your dog yourself, it does not matter what you call yourself or your dog. Your dog is your property. Those of us who live with companion animals are owners as far as the law is concerned, and we have the legal right to treat our animals as we see fit as long as we provide for minimal food, water and shelter. Yes, there are limitations on the exercise of our ownership rights. But those limitations are consistent with according a very low value to the interests of our animal companions.

But, as you recoil in horror thinking of what life would be like without your beloved dog, cat or other non-human companion, whom you love and cherish as a member of your family, you are probably thinking: ‘But wait. What if we required everyone to treat their animals the way I treat mine?’

The problem with this reply is that, even if we could come up with a workable and enforceable scheme that required animal owners to provide a higher level of welfare to their animals, those animals would still be property. We would still be able to value their lives at zero and either kill them, or take them to a shelter where they would be killed if not adopted.

You might respond that you disagree with all that as well, and that we ought to prohibit people from killing animals except in situations in which we might be tempted to allow assisted suicide (terminal illness, unrelenting pain, etc) and that we should prohibit shelters from killing animals except when it is in the best interests of the animal.

domestication itself raises serious moral issues irrespective of how the non-humans involved are treated

What you’re suggesting starts coming close to abolishing the status of animals as chattel property and requiring that we treat them in a way that is similar to the way we treat human children. Would it be acceptable to continue to breed non-humans to be our companions then?

Our answer is still a firm ‘no’.

Putting aside that the development of general standards of what constitutes treating non-humans as ‘family members’ and resolution of all the related issues is close to impossible as a practical matter, this position neglects to recognise that domestication itself raises serious moral issues irrespective of how the non-humans involved are treated.

Domesticated animals are completely dependent on humans, who control every aspect of their lives. Unlike human children, who will one day become autonomous, non-humans never will. That is the entire point of domestication – we want domesticated animals to depend on us. They remain perpetually in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything that is of relevance to them. We have bred them to be compliant and servile, and to have characteristics that are pleasing to us, even though many of those characteristics are harmful to the animals involved. We might make them happy in one sense, but the relationship can never be ‘natural’ or ‘normal’. They do not belong in our world, irrespective of how well we treat them. This is more or less true of all domesticated non-humans. They are perpetually dependent on us. We control their lives forever. They truly are ‘animal slaves’. Some of us might be benevolent masters, but we really can’t be anything more than that.

There are some, such as Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka, who in their book Zoopolis (2011) say that humans are dependent on each other, and ask what’s wrong with animals being dependent on us? Human relationships might involve mutual dependence or interdependence, but such dependence either operates on the basis of choice, or it reflects social decisions to care for more vulnerable members of society who are bound together and protected by the complex aspects of a social contract. Besides, the nature of human dependence does not strip the dependant of core rights that can be vindicated if the dependence becomes harmful.

There are those who respond to our position by saying that dogs, cats and other ‘pet’ animals have a right to reproduce. Such a position would commit us to continue to reproduce without limit and indefinitely, as we could not limit any reproductive right to ‘pet’ animals. As for those who are concerned that the end of domestication would mean a loss of species diversity, domesticated animals are beings we have created through selective breeding and confinement.

Some critics have claimed that our position concerns only the negative right not to be used as property, and does not address what positive rights animals might have. This observation is correct, but all domestication would end if we recognised this one right – the right not to be property. We would be obliged to care for those domesticated animals who presently exist, but we would bring no more into existence.

If we all embraced the personhood of non-humans, we would still need to think about the rights of non-domesticated animals who live among us and in undeveloped areas. But if we cared enough not to eat, wear or otherwise use domesticated non-humans, we would undoubtedly be able to determine what those positive rights should be. The most important thing is that we recognise the negative right of animals not to be used as property. That would commit us to the abolition of all institutionalised exploitation that results in the commodification and control of them by humans.

We love our dogs, but recognise that, if the world were more just and fair, there would be no pets at all, no fields full of sheep, and no barns full of pigs, cows and egg-laying hens. There would be no aquaria and no zoos.

If animals matter morally, we must recalibrate all aspects of our relationship with them. The issue we must confront is not whether our exploitation of them is ‘humane’ – with all of the concomitant tinkering with the practices of animal-use industries – but rather whether we can justify using them at all.

Metaphysics

The enchanted vision

Love is much more than a mere emotion or moral ideal. It imbues the world itself and we should learn to move with its power

Mark Vernon

What is ‘lived experience’?

The term is ubiquitous and double-edged. It is both a key source of authentic knowledge and a danger to true solidarity

Patrick J Casey

Human rights and justice

My elusive pain

The lives of North Africans in France are shaped by a harrowing struggle to belong, marked by postcolonial trauma

Farah Abdessamad

Thinkers and theories

Philosophy is an art

For Margaret Macdonald, philosophical theories are akin to stories, meant to enlarge certain aspects of human life

Conscientious unbelievers

How, a century ago, radical freethinkers quietly and persistently subverted Scotland’s Christian establishment

Felicity Loughlin

History of technology

Why America fell for guns

The US today has extraordinary levels of gun ownership. But to see this as a venerable tradition is to misread history

• Site search

The dangerous dog debate

"I didn't understand what was happening," recalled Lynn, an independent web consultant and designer. "Those moments of being on my back and being dragged … I really did think I was going to die." The attack was over in seconds. Lynn had been bitten twice, sustaining several puncture wounds and a fractured ulna that required surgery.

Police and animal control reports identify the dog that attacked Lynn as a sexually intact, adult male pit bull named Bull. Records show that in April 2006, Bull escaped his owner's yard and chased a man walking with his dog. The man and dog fled to a nearby porch, where the resident reportedly informed the man that Bull had recently cornered her in her own backyard. Bull's owner was cited for not having a dog license and received a verbal warning for the leash law violation.

To avoid criminal charges for the attack on Lynn, Bull's owner consented to having the dog euthanized.

Lynn is not the same person she was before the attack. She grew up loving dogs. She still loves dogs, but says the attack felt like a betrayal.

Breed-specific laws strengthen existing dangerous dog laws by targeting some of those prime offenders. Colleen Lynn, founder, DogsBite.org, a nonprofit that advocates for dog-bite victims

"I had no negative experiences with pit bulls or any dog prior to the attack. That a dog was capable of this just wasn't part of my world," Lynn said. Four months later, she launched DogsBite.org. Originally intended as a website to educate the public about dangerous dog breeds, DogsBite.org has evolved into a national organization that also advocates for dog-bite victims and for preventing serious attacks. The organization's website includes victim testimonies, a tally of U.S. dog-bite fatalities, and an overview of breed-specific legislation throughout the country.

Breed-specific laws ban or restrict ownership of dog breeds believed to be responsible for the most serious attacks on people. Pit bull–type dogs are the poster child of breed laws, but they can also apply to Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, and other large breeds. The American Kennel Club explained in a statement to JAVMA News that "pit bull" is a term commonly used to describe a particular type of dog—many being of mixed breeding—that has some ancestry relating to breeds in the United States, such as Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers. The AKC said "pit bull" is also used sometimes to describe mixes or breeds not registered with the AKC with names such as American Pit Bull Terrier or American Bully. "AKC does not consider Pit Bulls to be purebred dogs, and we register no such dogs," the organization said.

Nearly 90 million dogs are owned as pets in this country, according to the American Pet Products Association. Those relationships are usually peaceful, but not always. More than 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs annually in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The agency attributed over 300 deaths to dog attacks between 1979 and 1996, most of them children's. An analysis by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found roughly 316,000 emergency room visits and 9,500 hospitalizations in 2008 were dog bite–related. DogsBite.org reports 31 dog bite–related human fatalities occurred in 2016 and a total of 392 deaths from 2005 through 2016.

DogsBite.org's claim that pit bull–type dogs were responsible for 65 percent of the deaths during that 12-year period is disputed by some groups as inaccurate and misleading. The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, for example, says identifying a dog's breed accurately is difficult, even for professionals, and visual recognition is known to not always be reliable.

'Pit bull' is a term commonly used to describe a particular type of dog—many being of mixed breeding—that has some ancestry relating to breeds in the United States. … 'Pit bull' is also used sometimes to describe mixes or breeds not registered with the AKC. … Statement from the American Kennel Club

That's partly why the CDC stopped collecting breed data in dog-attack fatalities after 1998. Julie Gilchrist, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with the CDC, explained the challenges of studying dog bites during a presentation at the 2001 AVMA Annual Convention. "There are enormous difficulties in collecting dog bite data," Dr. Gilchrist said. "No centralized reporting system for dog bites exists, and incidents are typically relayed to a number of entities, such as the police, veterinarians, animal control, and emergency rooms, making meaningful analysis nearly impossible. Moreover, a pet dog that bites an owner or family member might go unreported if the injury isn't serious."

Breed restrictions emerged and proliferated during the 1980s as news reports increasingly portrayed pit bull–type dogs as an apex predator, one on which no other animals prey. Sports Illustrated highlighted a story on dogfighting in its July 27, 1987, issue with a cover featuring a snarling dog under the headline "Beware Of This Dog: The Pit Bull Terrier." Hollywood, Florida, enacted the nation's first breed-specific ordinance in 1980 after a pit bull–type dog scalped a 7-year-old boy and mangled his face. That law, which required owners of such dogs to prove they possessed $25,000 in personal liability insurance, was overturned two years later; the judge cited a lack of evidence that pit bull–type dogs were more dangerous than other dogs.

However, more than 900 cities currently have some form of breed-specific legislation on the books. The U.S. Army, Air Force, and Marines ban pit bull–type dogs and certain breeds from privatized housing domestically and abroad. Breed bans have also been implemented in two Canadian provinces as well as in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Turkey, and New Zealand.

Communities reeling after a vicious dog attack may respond by prohibiting or strictly regulating what is assumed to be the responsible breed as a quick fix to a legitimate problem, according to Rebecca Wisch, associate editor and clinical staff attorney with the Animal Legal and Historical Center at Michigan State University College of Law. "Breed-specific laws give people a sense of security," she explained, adding that owners of a banned breed sometimes email MSU's animal law center. "These people face either having to get rid of a dog they consider a family member or move out of the city. That's a pretty tall order for some people," Wisch said.

Over the years, the legality of breed laws has been challenged in numerous jurisdictions, but state and federal courts have repeatedly shown their willingness to let the ordinances stand.

"The usual arguments are breed-specific laws are unconstitutionally vague, or they violate the owner's right to due process or equal protection," Wisch said. "The courts are pretty comfortable shutting down those arguments as long as the legislation is rationally related to the stated goal of protecting the public from dog attacks."

I'm opposed to breed-specific legislation. I want my team and my officers to be as objective as possible. Robert C. Leinberger Jr., president, National Animal Care and Control Association

While the legal questions are mostly settled, debate over the effectiveness of such laws and regulations is not. Critics—who are many—say breed bans discriminate against responsible dog owners and malign select breeds as inherently vicious, a claim not supported by a 2014 AVMA report ("The Role of Breed in Dog Bite Risk and Prevention") that found pit bull–type dogs not to be excessively aggressive.

Opposition to breed bans has been expressed by the AVMA and CDC, along with the American Bar Association, Humane Society of the United States, and American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The Obama administration even took sides in the debate, describing breed-specific laws as "a bad idea" in August 2013 after an online petition calling for federal breed bans garnered more than 30,000 signatures. A handful of states, including Massachusetts, Nevada, and Connecticut, pre-emptively adopted laws prohibiting their towns and counties from regulating dogs according to breed.

Robert C. Leinberger Jr. has been dealing with dangerous dogs as an animal control officer for 26 years. In addition to being animal control supervisor for Richmond, Virginia, Leinberger is president of the National Animal Care and Control Association, which opposes breed-specific laws.

"Dangerous and/or vicious animals should be labeled as such as a result of their actions or behavior and not because of their breed," according to an NACA statement.

Leinberger says breed laws are too narrowly focused and don't account for such important factors as the owner's treatment of the dog and compliance with vaccination and licensing ordinances. Virginia law doesn't recognize breed as a determining criterion for whether a dog is a public threat. That is for a court to decide. A "dangerous" dog in Virginia, Leinberger explained, is one that attacked a companion animal, injuring or killing it, or bit a person without causing serious injury. A local court will mandate a dangerous dog be neutered and microchipped, and possibly wear a muzzle in public. The owner must buy personal liability insurance and post warning signs on the property. A dog that kills or seriously injures a person is declared to be "vicious" and ordered to be euthanized.

"Personally and professionally, I'm opposed to breed-specific legislation," Leinberger said. "I want my team and my officers to be as objective as possible during their investigations and not having to worry 'Is that a Doberman? Is that a Pekingese? Is that a pit bull or a Weimaraner?' I want them to look at the merits of the case: This dog, whatever it is, got loose, attacked a person or another animal, and caused injury. I want them to look at that, rather than having to prejudge the animal and taint the case."

Colleen Lynn says breed-specific ordinances aren't meant to prevent each of the 4.5 million dog bites that occur each year. Rather, they aim to prevent the smaller number of maulings and severe injuries, for which the victim is often a child. A 2016 study she cited of 1,161 pediatric dog-bite victims in Atlanta found pit bull–type dogs were 2.5 times as likely as other dogs to bite in multiple anatomic locations. Additionally, children bitten by pit bull–type dogs were three times as likely to need surgery as were those bitten by other dogs.

"The mission of DogsBite.org is to reduce serious dog attacks," Lynn said. "Breed-specific laws strengthen existing dangerous dog laws by targeting some of those prime offenders."

Both sides of the debate have evidence supporting their positions. After ownership of pit bull–type dogs was banned in Sioux City, Iowa, in 2008, public health records show the number of bites by them dropped from 24 in 2007 to four in 2015. Similarly, in Springfield, Missouri, where owners of pit bull–type dogs have been required since 2006 to license, neuter, and microchip their dogs and post warning signs on their property, the number of bites by such dogs fell from 34 cases in 2005 to 16 in 2016. Prior to the ordinance, the city euthanized "hundreds" of unwanted pit bull–type dogs each year. That number dropped to 26 in 2016.

However, in 2008 the Dutch government revoked a 15-year nationwide ban on ownership of pit bull–type dogs after a study concluded the law was ineffective. Researchers in a Canada-wide study published in 2013 found no difference between the number of dog bites in municipalities with and without breed-specific legislation.

Breed "absolutely" influences a dog's behavior and is one of several factors that shape an animal's temperament, explained Dr. Sagi Denenberg, a diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists and the European College of Animal Welfare and Behavioral Medicine.

"No one bred a Golden Retriever to look golden. They bred dogs that can swim and spend a lot of time in the water without getting cold. We essentially bred dogs for thousands of years for their behavior," said Dr. Denenberg, an instructor and researcher at Bristol Veterinary College in the United Kingdom. Environment, the owner, and the quality of maternal care a dog receives as a puppy also greatly impact the dog's personality.

Dr. Denenberg believes people have forgotten that aggression is a normal canine behavior. A dog expresses aggression when it hunts or protects resources, as when a person too near a food bowl receives a warning growl. "These are normal behaviors. The problem is that aggression is unacceptable for us as owners," he said. "Every dog has its limit, and if they're pushed far enough, they bite. Some dogs have to be pushed really, really far before they show aggression, whereas other dogs show it much sooner, but each dog has the potential to be dangerous."

Find AVMA resources on dog bites, including statistics, research, and an alternative to breed-specific legislation at " A Community Approach to Dog-Bite Prevention ". Additional information is available at www.DogsBite.org and www.AVSAB.org .​

Is Pet Ownership Ethical?

Animal Rights and Welfare Activists on Animal Domestication

• University of Southern California
• Animal Rights
• Endangered Species

Because of pet overpopulation, just about all animal welfare activists would probably agree that we should spay and neuter our cats and dogs. But there would be some disagreement if you were to ask whether we should breed cats and dogs if all the shelters were empty and there were good, loving homes available.

Animal industries such as the fur industry and factory farms try to discredit animal protection groups by claiming that activists want to take people’s pets away. While some animal rights activists do not believe in keeping pets, we can assure you that no one wants to take your dog away from you — as long as you're treating it well.

Arguments for Pet Ownership

Many people consider their pets to be members of the family and thus treat them with love and respect. Oftentimes, this feeling appears to be mutual, as dog and cat pets seek out their owners to play, pet or invite them into their laps. These animals provide unconditional love and devotion — to deny them and us this relationship seems unthinkable to some.

Also, keeping pets is a much more humane way for them to live as opposed to  factory farms , animal testing labs or circuses use and abuse the animals. However, thanks to regulations passed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture like the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 , even these animals are entitled to a basic quality of life as sentient beings. 

Still, even the Humane Society of the United States argues that we should keep our pets — according to one official statement "pets are creatures with whom we share a world, and we rejoice in their companionship; you don't have to anthropomorphize to recognize that the feelings are returned...let us be close and cherish each other always." 

The vast majority of animal activists advocate spaying and neutering. However, most will say that the reason is the millions of cats and dogs who are killed in shelters every year, as opposed to any basic opposition to the keeping of pets.

Arguments Against Pet Ownership

On the other side of the spectrum, some animal activists argue that we should not keep or breed pets regardless of whether we have an overpopulation problem — there are two basic arguments that support these claims.

One argument is that cats, dogs, and other pets suffer too much at our hands. Theoretically, we may be able to provide good homes for our pets, and many of us do. However, in the real world, animals suffer abandonment, cruelty, and neglect.

Another argument is that even on a theoretical level, the relationship is inherently flawed and we are unable to provide the full lives that these animals deserve. Because they are bred to be dependent on us, the basic relationship between humans and companion animals is flawed because of the difference in power. A sort of Stockholm syndrome, this relationship forces animals to love their owners in order to get affection and food, oftentimes neglecting their animal nature to do so.

The animals rights activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) opposes keeping pets , partially for this reason. An official statement on their website states that animals' "lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink and even urinate when humans allow them to." It then goes on to list common "mistreatments" of these house pets including declawing cats, not cleaning litter boxes and scolding any creature to get off the furniture or hurry up on its walk.

A Happy Pet Is a Good Pet to Have

The opposition to keeping pets must be distinguished from a call to release domesticated animals. They are dependent on us for their survival and it would be cruel to turn them loose on the streets or in the wilderness.

The position must also be distinguished from any desire to take anyone’s dogs and cats away. We have a duty to take care of the animals who are already here, and the best place for them is with their loving and caring human guardians. This is why animal rights activists who oppose keeping pets might have rescued pets themselves.

Activists who oppose keeping pets believe that domestic animals should not be allowed to breed. The animals who are already here should live long, healthy lives, cared for with love and respect by their human guardians. As long as the pet is happy and lives a life of love without undue suffering, for most people, animal rights and welfare activists alike, pets are definitely fine to have!

• The Top 10 Animal Rights Issues
• Factory Farming Is More Destructive Than Ever
• Pets Are Good for Your Health, and We Have the Studies to Prove It
• What's the Difference Between a Zoo and a Sanctuary?
• Arguments for and Against Humane Meat
• The Argument for Animal Rights
• Why Filmmakers Gave Guinea Pigs Their Own Documentary
• What Are Animal Rights?
• Responses to Top Arguments Against Animal Rights
• Should Dogs Have Legal Rights?
• 6 Animals with Pets of Their Own
• Why Animal Rights Activists Are Against the AKC
• Western Australia Bans Puppy Mills, Dog Sales in Pet Shops
• Animal Rights and the Ethics of Testing
• What's Wrong With Aquariums?
• 4,000 Beagles Rescued From Massive Virginia Breeding Facility

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Life Dog

Why Dogs are the Best Pets: Exploting Persuasive Arguments

Table of contents, unconditional love and loyalty, stress relief and emotional support, encouragement of physical activity, enhanced social interactions, protection and security.

• Odendaal, J. S. (2000). Animal-assisted therapy—Magic or medicine? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 49(4), 275-280.
• Anderson, W. P., & Reid, C. M. (1992). The short-term effects of pet therapy on the elderly. Gerontology, 38(6), 307-310.
• Wood, L., Martin, K., Christian, H., Nathan, A., Lauritsen, C., Houghton, S., ... & McCune, S. (2015). The pet factor—Companion animals as a conduit for getting to know people, friendship formation and social support. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0122085.
• Wells, D. L. (2009). The effects of animals on human health and well-being. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 523-543.
• Nagasawa, M., Mogi, K., & Kikusui, T. (2009). Attachment between humans and dogs. Japanese Psychological Research, 51(3), 209-221.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Argumentative Essay Example

Pets Argumentative Essays Samples For Students

30 samples of this type

During studying in college, you will surely have to pen a bunch of Argumentative Essays on Pets. Lucky you if putting words together and turning them into meaningful text comes easy to you; if it's not the case, you can save the day by finding an already written Pets Argumentative Essay example and using it as a model to follow.

This is when you will definitely find WowEssays' free samples directory extremely useful as it embodies numerous skillfully written works on most various Pets Argumentative Essays topics. Ideally, you should be able to find a piece that meets your criteria and use it as a template to compose your own Argumentative Essay. Alternatively, our skilled essay writers can deliver you a unique Pets Argumentative Essay model written from scratch according to your custom instructions.

Good The Black Cat Argumentative Essay Example

Good example of analyzing a visual text argumentative essay, good example of how the war changed duncan mcclains life argumentative essay, introduction.

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your argumentative essay done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Free How Human Beings Should Treat Animals Argumentative Essay Sample

Free argumentative essay about peta (people for the ethical treatment of animals), good example of the newsworthiness of medias coverage of celebrities private lives argumentative essay, the problems of breed-specific legislation argumentative essay examples, example of pit bulls argumentative essay, argumentative essay on approaches to training a dog, travels of marco polo - a manual for imperialism argumentative essay examples.

I have very much enjoyed reading the travels of Marco Polo through the Indian Ocean, as well as his appraisal of the different civilizations and tribes he meets along the way. This particular section is interesting to me, due to the fact that he has somewhat of an imperialist view of these tribes. He always has to compare and frame these tribes to the Christian audience he is writing to, and it almost seems like a manual for what needs to be conquered and taken for the glory of Europe.

An Argument Essay Against The Use Of Fur In The Fashion History Argumentative Essay

1.0 introduction.

The fashion industry is one of the fast growing industries worldwide occupying a place with the sky-rocketing information technology industry. Generally, clothing made of animal fur is expensive and a person with this expensive dress is regarded of a higher class in society.

Exotic Animal Trade Laws Argumentative Essay

When considering the problems of importing exotic animals from foreign countries, it is necessary to evaluate the laws that currently exist, and determine whether or not they provide an effective means of safeguarding the animals in question. In this essay, it will be argued that the laws that are in place at this time do not protect animals from mistreatment in an adequate manner, nor do they effectively prevent the occurrence of disease.

Argumentative Essay On David Hernandezs Pigeons

David Hernandez’s poem Pigeons is a comparison piece. Hernandez compares the activities and treatment of pigeons to those of Hispanics. He uses symbolism, imagery and tone as techniques in conveying his theme of racism. Overall, it is an accessible poem with a clear subject matter.

Nutrition {type) To Use As A Writing Model

Are pit bulls a threat or family friendly, good example of the fight for pit-bulls argumentative essay, example of argumentative essay on rhetorical analysis of maus, is a picture really worth a thousand words, free argumentative essay on john locke v. karl max, guilty and set free argumentative essay examples, good argumentative essay about descartes and hume questions, euthanasia as an ethical alternative to a life of suffering argumentative essay, power structures & foucault argumentative essay examples, good example of “madness and civilization” argumentative essay, advantages of a retirement home for mrs. willis argumentative essay sample, advantages of a retirement home for mrs. willis, sample argumentative essay on coming of age in a raisin in the sun, argumentative essay on first-person narration in modern chinese fiction, an analysis of character development, setting, and symbolism in henrik ibsen's argumentative essay, argumentative essay on animal cloning, why horse slaughter should be continued in the united states argumentative essay example, the guggenheim bilbao museum as vehicle of art of money argumentative essay, religion and animal rights/tom regan argumentative essay example.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Pet — Argumentative Paper: Cats Are Better Than Dogs

Argumentative Paper: Cats Are Better than Dogs

• Categories: Cat Dog Pet

About this sample

Words: 440 |

Published: Mar 16, 2024

Words: 440 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Independence, low maintenance, emotional support.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 997 words

1 pages / 630 words

2 pages / 1039 words

5 pages / 2219 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Pet

Dogs are more than just pets; they are loyal companions who bring countless benefits to their owners. From guarding the house to relieving stress, dogs play a significant role in the lives of many people.One of the primary [...]

Throughout history, dogs have been known as man's best friend. They are loyal, loving, and provide companionship and security to their owners. In this essay, we will explore the reasons why dogs make great pets, including their [...]

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed faculty, and fellow students thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. As a college student, I believe that it is our collective responsibility to make a positive impact on the world [...]

Pet ownership is a common practice across cultures and societies, with animals like dogs, cats, and horses providing pleasure and companionship to their human owners. This symbiotic relationship between humans and their pets has [...]

Lopata, L. (2020). Dogs Have Been Humans' Best Friends for 20,000 Years, According to Artifacts. Mental Floss. Retrieved from https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/why-dogs-are-mans-best-friend/

If you have ever owned a pet, then, you can attest to the fact that owning a pet is indeed a fantastic experience that everyone should have at least once in a lifetime. Pets are obviously animals. However, to a pet owner, a pet [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

📕 Studying HQ

150+ argumentative essay topics about animal abuse, bob cardens.

• July 31, 2022
• Essay Topics and Ideas , Samples

When it comes to argumentative essay writing, there are many different topics that you can choose from. However, one topic that always seems to be popular is animal abuse. Argumentative Essay Topics About Animal Abuse can be about anything related to animal abuse, Here are some good animal abuse essay topics and research topics you can write about

What You'll Learn

Argumentative Research Paper Topics About Animal Abuse with prompts

Ethics- use of animals in the process of testing non-medical products.

Essay prompt: poisoning, shocking, burning, and murdering animals has become a common practice for various companies producing non-medical products such as cosmetics, cleaning, storage, pharmacy, and office supplies among others, according to people for the ethical treatment of animals (PETA).

Delegate your Paper to an Expert

Owning exotic pets

Essay prompt: having pets could make the owners to experience enrichment and joy. There are so many benefits associated with keeping pet animals.

Argumentative essay thesis: owning exotic animals can cause an endangerment to the animal, to the owner, and to the community.

• Close reading: human-animal relations

Essay prompt: the utilitarian perspective involves the idea that animals are simply sources of food and have no added value.

• Argumentative essay about animal models in scientific research

Essay prompt: this paper argues that the use of animal models in scientific research is more beneficial compared to its drawbacks and that all animal experiments strictly adhere to the ethical principles of scientific research

• Aspca animal abuse and adoption
• Essay prompt: before human beings walked the face of the earth, there were already inhabitants that are years ahead of us, and these were animals. Animals have been through many natural phenomena and disasters, evolved, and adapted to what we know of them nowadays, but their fight for survival is still not over.
• Should animals be used for medical research
• Techniques of propaganda in animal farm
• Describe why animal research and testing ought to stop

Essay prompt: while there are benefits to humans from animal research, the researchers claim that they try to minimize pain and discomfort, but fail to show how they achieve this.

• Animal cruelty laws: suffering or premature death

Essay prompt: this paper discusses various animal cruelty laws that fight for animal rights to avert their suffering or premature death. Globally, animals have continuously become subjects of litigation.

• Developing spare parts for humans

Essay prompt: undergraduate essay: developing spare parts for humans. Animals are being experimented with and used to create tissues, organs and medicines for humans. Do you believe that using certain animals for this?

• Commercial animal farms: animal rights research assignment

Essay prompt: what do you think would happen to commercial animal farms if regan’s ideas are adopted?

• Subtle relationship between elephants and humans
• Treating animals humanely personal essay

Essay prompt: this article seeks to make the argument that animals deserve to be treated humanely because it is wrong to advance a single species at the expense of others, some fundamental rights extend to all species.

As you continue,  thestudycorp.com  has the top and most qualified writers to help with any of your assignments. All you need to do is  place an order  with us.

Argumentative Essay Topics About Animal Abuse

• What are the things one should consider before adopting a pet?
• Should the law be harsher for animal cruelty?
• Should the conditions in a farm factory be improved?
• Human lives are more important than living creatures’ ones
• Should hunting be banned?
• Should we propose alternatives to animal experiments?
• Animal rights as an indicator of a civilized society.
• Do animals have rights?
• Is it important to protect endangered animals?
• Can humans fully protect endangered species?
• Testing cosmetics products on living things should be banned
• Are some animals more beneficial to the ecosystem than others?
• Should animals be subjected to captivity?
• All of us need to respect living creatures and their role
• Should wild animals be kept in reserves?
• Should animals be used in research studies?
• Can animal testing be justified?
• The efforts of various international conventions on animal rights are irrelevant as they are incapable of checking injustice to animals.

Here are  130 + Best Research Topic About Nursing – Types & How To Choose A Nursing Research Topic

• Animal fashion needs to be banned globally
• Lots of people don’t really care about animals
• Can you keep animals caught in the wild as pets?
• Is taking animals to a zoo an inhumane act?
• Is it right to use animals for cosmetics testing?
• Many of the animal species are about to extinct because of the chemicals applied to them during the test.
• The dangers that farms expose animals to.
• Are developed countries less cruel towards animals compared to underdeveloped states?
• Is hunting for rhino’s horns leading to their extinction?
• Punishments for animal abuse are still too mild
• Should animal testing get banned for medicine?
• Is animal dissection a useful learning tool for students?
• Forest cutting has terrible consequences on wildlife
• The moral aspects of keeping animals in captivity for entertainment and commercial reasons.
• Should we ban animal fashion?
• Animals are subjected to human cruelty in various testing labs nowadays?
• What impact do people on wild animals?
• Explore the scope of animal rights; should animal rights be increased?
• Alternatives to animal experimentations
• Should we enforce rules to protect animals against inhumane cruelty on legal grounds?
• Is it right to give dairy cows drugs to boost their milk production?
• The punishment for poaching wild animals should be increased.
• International conventions on animals is completely irrelevant
• Are companion animals efficient for lonely people?
• Animal testing is a must but can be improved
• Is it right or acceptable to use higher animals like chimpanzees and monkeys in laboratory research?
• We should never take medicine if we must save animals from medical experiments
• Is animal health child’s play
• Do lab technicians subject animals to inhumane treatment in laboratory experiments?
• Should deer hunting be banned?
• Should animal keepers encourage the genetic modification of livestock
• Biotechnology poses serious threats to animals
• Which conditions should an aquarium have before immersing gold fish?
• What are some of the ways that people who live in cities tend to abuse their pets?
• Bullfighting: to be or not to be?
• Should animals be killed for food?
• How has the advancement of technology lead to increased animal cruelty
• Most of the animals spread infectious diseases once they are subjected to chemical tests in several experiments.
• Is the genetic modification of domestic animals potentially dangerous for humans?

These are just a few ideas to get you started – there are endless possibilities when it comes to writing about animal abuse. No matter what angle you take, make sure to back up your argument with evidence and reason, and be respectful of other people’s opinions. With a little effort, you can write an essay that will spark discussion and debate – and maybe even change some minds!

Writing on health, here’s a sample Argumentative Essay On Universal Healthcare

Animal Topics For Essays

• The tribal people harm animals for their meals and other needs in several ways.
• The advancement in technology and coming of the biotechnology in the past couple of decades pose a serious threat to animals.
• How expensive is veterinary care?
• Should people have exotic pets?
• The moral responsibility of eliminating animal abuse.
• Making policies to prevent animal cruelty is not enough, they should be enforced on the ground
• Are the wild animals reserves safe for all species?
• Living things shouldn’t be used for entertaining humans
• Should the government continue testing antibiotics on animals?
• Are animals facing cruelty in testing labs?
• Which ways are people in the city advancing animal cruelty
• Is it justifiable to sell products made from animals?
• Should the production of garments from mink be allowed?
• Should we ban use of primates in animal testing?
• Is it right to use animals for medical studies and scientific experiments?
• What methods are implemented on animals during induced helplessness tests?
• Is the factory farm treatment of animals an inhumane act?
• The principles of saving exotic animals from human intervention.
• Should there be a higher penalty for poaching?
• Can medics justify the concept of animal testing?
• Should euthanizing stray animals be banned? (Animal Topics For Essays)
• Animal cruelty
• Is hunting inhumane?
• Epidemiology and animal experimentation: which one is more successful?
• Why animal health should be properly maintained.
• Teaching kids to care for animals.
• Can humans improve the lives of captive animals?
• Are monkeys the most advanced animals?

Here’s a list of  Good Argumentative History Essay Topics

Veterinary Argumentative Essay Topics

• The dangerous effects of humans on beings’ life
• Developed countries are less cruel towards animals as compared to developing and underdeveloped nations.
• Is animal health just a way of making money?
• The challenges encompassing the adoption of pets.
• Is the tether of dogs outside an act of neglect and therefore inhumane?
• Particular species that must be used for testing and experimentation
• Do animals spread infections once subjected to chemical tests in laboratory experiments?
• Why performance animals are exposed to higher risks.
• Should stray animals be euthanized?
• People should not use animals for the purpose of entertainment
• Should foxes be domesticated?
• Apart from making strict rules for saving cruelty to animals, it is also important to enforce them on the real ground.
• Whaling should be outlawed globally.
• Should people pet exotic animals?
• Should pets be controlled to prevent overpopulation?

Find out more on  Argumentative Essay Topics About Social Media [Updated]

Animal Rights Essay Topics

• Opposing position: animals should be protected and death penalty

Essay prompt: there has been controversy on the use of animals in experiments and research, but the practice has been used over time and ethical principles adopted to minimize risks .

• Effect of global warming on certain species of animals (Animal Topics For Essays)

Essay prompt: today, the sea level has gone down, the temperature of the atmosphere has increased, and rains do not fall normally. All this is because of man-made things and unwanted human activities that have contributed to an increased level of global warming.

• Animal captivity: animals live in environments

Essay prompt: animals in captivity are on a daily basis, forced to endure conditions of physical as well as psychological pain. This hampers their development and changes the way they should live and develop.

• Animals should be used for medical research : should animals be used for medical research?
• Discuss the use of animals for sports and entertainment

You can also check out  150+ Top-Notch Argumentative Essay Topic Ideas

Essay prompt: the use of animals for entertainment has been a practice done for over twenty centuries dating back to the time of the gladiator and the coliseum.

• Using animals in psychological research (Animal Topics For Essays)

Essay prompt: the practice of using animals in research has been a common phenomenon for decades since findings from these studies have had a big impact on the development of medicine.

• Letting wild animals remain in the wild, and refraining people from supporting zoos

Essay prompt: conclusively, wild animals should not be kept captive, which is common in most parts of the world. Human beings are the superior species, which gives them the mandate to rule and protect other animals.

• Is it better for animals to not be kept in zoos

Essay prompt: the debate of whether keeping animals in a zoo or letting them wander in their natural habitat is a controversial issue. Notably, all the animals we see in zoos are wild animals.

• Why animals have no right research assignment paper (Argumentative Research Paper Topics About Animal Abuse)

Animal Topics For Research Papers

• Are factory farms responsible for the active spread of influenza diseases among chickens and other domestic animals?
• Humans should be banned from poaching
• Scientists should not use primates and sophisticated vertebrates in lab research
• Tribal people harm animals more for their personal needs
• Are zoos good or bad for animals?
• Is it lawful to keep ocean marine in captivity? (Animal Topics For Essays)
• The advancement of protection culture for fauna.
• Animals don’t have feelings
• What is the impact of water pollution on aquatic life?
• Animal fashion should be illegalized.
• We care for beasties selectively, and that’s a problem
• The ethical aspect of euthanizing stray animals.
• Global warming is destroying different animal ecosystems
• The relevance of conserving the giant panda
• Is animal testing for medical and cosmetic purposes morally justified?

Lastly here are bonus argumentative Essay Topics About Animal Abuse;

• Is it justifiable to sacrifice animals for religious purposes?
• Is companion animal good for people who are lonely?
• Should we report people who are cruel to animals?
• Should chimpanzees and monkeys be used in animal testing?
• Is chemical application on animals the reason for their quick extinction?
• Is it right to breed foxes into companion animals?
• The urgency of protecting endangered animals.
• Do humans have the responsibility to protect the animals they use for medical or experimental tests?
• Should people treat poisonous animals with kindness?
• Should people be afraid of animals?
• Are dolphins the friendliest animals? (Animal Topics For Essays)
• Should bullfighting be banned?
• You can wear leather or fur provided the animals were raised in humane conditions.
• Can the cross-breeding of animal be a sustainable business in the long-term?
• Should animals be respected?
• Trends and public opinion towards animal rights
• Are there conditions in the farm that foster the spread of avian influenza amongst chicken?
• Do you support tethering of dogs and other animals outside?
• Argumentative Research Paper Topics About Animal Abuse

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow. 

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS. 

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Have a subject expert write for you now, have a subject expert finish your paper for you, edit my paper for me, have an expert write your dissertation's chapter, popular topics.

Business StudyingHq Essay Topics and Ideas How to Guides Samples

• Nursing Solutions
• Study Guides
• Free Study Database for Essays
• Privacy Policy
• Writing Service 
• Discounts / Offers 

Study Hub: 

• Studying Blog
• Topic Ideas 
• How to Guides
• Business Studying 
• Nursing Studying 
• Literature and English Studying

Writing Tools  

• Citation Generator
• Topic Generator
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Conclusion Maker
• Research Title Generator
• Thesis Statement Generator
• Summarizing Tool
• Terms and Conditions
• Confidentiality Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Refund and Revision Policy

Our samples and other types of content are meant for research and reference purposes only. We are strongly against plagiarism and academic dishonesty. 

Contact Us:

📧 [email protected]

📞 +15512677917

2012-2024 © studyinghq.com. All rights reserved

Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences Essay

Introduction, works cited.

Specific Purpose: To convince conscious pet-owners that keeping exotic pets harms the latter, the solution is to advocate for better regulations because I do not want to play God and would rather start being responsible for protecting the environment.

Central Idea: To be convinced not to keep exotic pets.

• Many exotic pets die even before being sold, and the rest suffer in an unsuitable environment.
• Not making inquiries before buying such an animal results in insufficient resources and a pet’s death.
• Everyone in the audience probably has a pet and can feel empathy towards a non-human being.
• After researching the topic properly, I hope to convince you that keeping exotic pets is harmful to them, so the solution is to advocate for better regulations because I do not want to play God and would rather start being responsible for protecting the environment.

(Transition: Before I tell about advocating for better regulations, allow me to explain the issue with exotic pets).

Keeping exotic pets can be harmful to them due to inadequate care (problem). According to PETA, most of them die during capture and transportation, and those who survive the ordeal suffer the same fate at people’s homes, barely living for more than a year. Such pets require specialized diets and facilities, which are not easily available or affordable (Henn). Some impatient owners may leave them outdoors to solve the issue, but it is equally lethal for the animal (PETA). It may also become too distressed and try to escape, leading to a similar outcome (Henn). Meanwhile, several stakeholders, including smugglers, sellers, and other indifferent owners, appear to benefit from the situation.

The problem is rampant due to inadequate legal regulation regarding exotic pets, so the best solution would be to advocate for its improvement (solution). Better laws can remove the loopholes used by traders and make it mandatory to monitor animal lives to prevent abuse by smugglers or owners (Nuwer). The advocacy can be done through starting petitions or signing the existing ones, appealing to the local government, or joining forces with the Wildlife Conservation Society or another organization (Nuwer). As a result, exotic pets will not be openly sold, and their lives will be spared; moreover, a potential owner may avoid being incriminated for illegally possessing one and will opt for a safer option.

(Transition: As you have the understanding of the issue and its potential solution by advocating for better regulations in the field, I will share why it resonates with me).

I do not want to play God and would rather start being responsible for protecting the environment (emotional appeal). People buy exotic pets simply because they are unique or beautiful without caring for their survival, which is a consumerist approach to nature, and I cannot accept it. I believe that those animals are living beings deserving of freedom, and by leaving them alone, we will eventually learn how to save the planet, too.

I am out of time, but I am certain that now you see why it could be very beneficial to advocate for better regulations concerning exotic pets instead of keeping them.

Henn, Corrine. “Here’s Why Exotic Animals Belong in the Wild, Not as ‘Pets’ in Our Backyards.” One Green Planet , 2021, Web.

Nuwer, Rachel. “Many Exotic Pets Suffer or Die in Transit, and Beyond—and the U.S. Government is Failing to Act.” National Geographic , 2021, Web.

PETA. “Exotic Animals as ‘Pets.’” PETA , Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, October 5). Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences. https://ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-exotic-pets-and-negative-consequences/

"Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences." IvyPanda , 5 Oct. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-exotic-pets-and-negative-consequences/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences'. 5 October.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences." October 5, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-exotic-pets-and-negative-consequences/.

1. IvyPanda . "Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences." October 5, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-exotic-pets-and-negative-consequences/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Keeping Exotic Pets and Negative Consequences." October 5, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-exotic-pets-and-negative-consequences/.

• The PETA print advertisement
• The Peta-Marron's Expansion to Australia: Financial Statements
• Cultural Analysis of PETA Commercial
• The Birth of a Consumerist Society
• Impatient Rehabilitation Center's Services
• The Character of Jesus
• Exotic Species Threat to Native Species
• Happy Cows Case: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
• Retributivism and Fallible Systems of Punishment
• Value of Anti-Consumerist Movements
• The Evolution of Communication Structures in Animals
• Compulsory Microchipping of Dogs
• Dogs: What Can't They Do?
• Instinctive Behavior in Animals
• Seasonal Trend of Fertility in Pigs